Evidence Hub

Randomized, double-blind, comparative study of levofloxacin and ofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections

M Y Peng

PubMed, 1999

104 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

Levofloxacin, the optical S-(-) isomer of ofloxacin, was compared with ofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs). Patients eligible for the trial were randomly assigned to either a daily 300 mg of levofloxacin or 600 mg of ofloxacin for 10 consecutive days. The double blind design was achieved by a double-dummy technique utilizing placebo of both test drugs. Efficacy variables measured were: urine white blood cell counts for the effects on pyuria, urine cultures for effects on bacteriuria, subjective symptoms, and overall clinical efficacy which combined results from effects on bacteriuria, pyuria and subjective symptoms. Safety endpoints were the incidence of adverse events and laboratory test monitoring after a 10-day treatment. A total of 104 patients were enrolled into this trial and 46 patients were evaluable for efficacy endpoints. Most patients with culture-negative (48 cases), mixed flora (5 cases), and less than 10,000 colony forming units/mL of bacteria (3 cases) were excluded from analyses. None of the demographic and baseline characteristics were significantly different between treatments (p > 0.05). Therapeutic effects upon bacteriuria for both treatment groups were similar with a response rate of 90.0% for levofloacin and 88.5% for ofloxacin. Efficacy on the subjective symptoms revealed response rates of 90.0% in the levofloxacin group and 80.7% in the ofloxacin group, with the overall clinical efficacy of 90% in the levofloxacin…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 104 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free